Comments on: Google collections made easier

By: Magnus

Magnus — Wed, 26 May 2010 08:41:36 +0000

This is awesome. Google Common Collections has totally revolutionized my coding. This project will take it even further. Thanks for the good work.

By: Shanon

Shanon — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:45:39 +0000

Hehe I really like your last suggestion I’d love to see the code integrated into the core google collections/guava project. Definately preferable to being sued for trademark violation!

By: Mohamed El-Beltagy

Mohamed El-Beltagy — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:15:52 +0000

I think that you have a point for naming your project with the current name to be able to communicate your intentions. But I think also that Mike is right.
- One solution could be that you change your project’s name to something else, but keep your project description to include what ever you want to say. Even if it would be a simple sentence that stresses your intentions of the project.
- Other one is that you contact Google and take their permission..
- A better and last option, may be instead of taking permission to name your project, why don’t you contact them and try to add you code to the original project’s code base

By: Shanon

Shanon — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:35:09 +0000

The main reason for the name is to help communicate the intent. The project is specifically designed to be used on top of google gollections and cannot be used otherwise.

You do make a good point though, does anyone else think I should change the name?

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:37:34 +0000

@Shanon: Your code may be great, and you may be well-intentioned, giving props to Google for doing the heavy lifting…but (disclaimer: IANAL) the legally/ethically right thing for you to do is to thank Google in your dependencies, not by appropriating their trademark to use, without their permission, on your library.

Why didn’t you call your library fluent-oracle-collections? Surely your code leverages much more Oracle code (via acquisition) than Google. Perhaps you could rename your library to something you have a reasonable claim to use, like “fluent-compactcode-collections” or “fluent-shanon-collections”?

(If you actually got Google’s permission/blessing, my apologies, and I completely retract this comment.)

By: Shanon

Shanon — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:15:58 +0000

All the underlying transformation, filtering, sorting and joining is being performed by the google collections api. You can see the source code and relevant imports here. I’ll take it as a compliment that the library does a good job hiding this complexity

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:02:46 +0000

Why is this project called “fluent-google-collections” and not “fluent-collections” or “fluent-rubylike-collections”? What does Google have to do with it, other than you’ve chosen to have a dependency on two or three (non-collection-based) Google classes?

By: Shanon

Shanon — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:35:34 +0000

@ Vadim

I’m not familiar with op4j but I will check it out. lamdaj (http://code.google.com/p/lambdaj/) is another one worth checking out. There are quite a few similar projects around. I created fluent-google-collections because I wanted something really simple for working with lists that leveraged existing high quality libraries.

@John

I’m glad you mentioned the method name fluent. I’ve been thinking about changing this for a while but hadn’t settled on a decision. I’m thinking listOf as it reads slightly better than list (imo) when using static imports.

Thanks for the feedback

By: opensas

opensas — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:15:44 +0000

I agree with John Watson

By: John Watson

John Watson — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:08:17 +0000

Why not call the method “list”, rather than “fluent”? The word “fluent” doesn’t evoke list creation to me at all.